If the officer that charged me with speeding took TRAFFIC HISTORY as required (visual sighting and estimation of speed), states that this was a jusitifiable cause to engage the radar, then could I argue that his eye sight was a tool in speed enforcement?

If his eye sight is a tool, then am I correct in arguing that his eye sight must be tested and verified to be at least 20/20? Can he prove it and does his detachment have an annual eye check policy?

If I am guilty because of the 'strict liability laws', then must the prosecution prove that all measuring tools are acurate?

I haven't read anything about this before, but I KNOW I was not going 110 KM as the officer states.

You may require some serious legal representation, read Greenspan, to call into question the officers eye sight, and I for one would not do it.

The officer that pulled me over and charged me has recently been in several news articles related to speeding and speed blitzs in his area.

Can I question him on the professional benefits to his career by taking part in such activities. Can I bring forward the fact that because of his active participation that he may have undue predjuice and be over zealous when it comes to ticketing those he is assuming are speeding. I can bring copies of periodicals showing his participation?

I am positive that I was NOT going as fast as I have been charged with.

Post above was merged in from another thread. Please keep all posts related to the same ticket on the same thread. Makes it easier for everyone to follow the subject...

Helper wrote:If his eye sight is a tool, then am I correct in arguing that his eye sight must be tested and verified to be at least 20/20?

No. His eyesight only has to be good enough to verify that the vehicle was speeding. There is no set standard for it. His testimony that he could see you speeding is good enough. You could try bringing in an eye chart, but unless you are, or have, a qualified optometrist, that's going to go nowhere. (In other words, I wouldn't recommend it.)

Helper wrote:Can I question him on the professional benefits to his career by taking part in such activities.

Professional benefits? Such as? This would be a fruitless fishing expedition, IMO. It does not have anything to do with, whether you were exceeding the posted speed limit at the time. You'd need some way of showing that he deliberately falsified evidence. This article you refer to hardly sounds like it.

Helper wrote:The officer that pulled me over and charged me has recently been in several news articles related to speeding and speed blitzs in his area.

Do the articles state that he has been previously caught faking traffic stops? Falsifying evidence? If not, what's the point? He's in traffic enforcement, his job is to stop and ticket people who do things like exceed the speed limit, etc. Where's the prejudice? If anything, this would backfire, because it would tend to show that the officer is experienced and dedicated to what he's doing. Speeding cases are not won on novel defences. They are won on technicalities, or goof-ups by the Prosecutor/officer. The stuff you're going after does not count as either. You're better off digging through the radar manual to see the correct methods for testing and using the device, and other things like that.